[Macworld]

Post your comments for Faster than ever: Macworld Lab speed tests the mid-2011 iMacs here

[j1h15233]

I love the title of this article haha. I hope Apple never releases new computers that are worse.

[QCassidy352]

Looking forward to seeing more graphics tests. The COD 4 framerates are far closer across all models than one would expect. With the exception of the '09 imac that had the 9400m graphics chip, the biggest difference between any two models tested was 10.3 fps. That doesn't at all line up with the very large known differences among the graphics cards tested. What's going on here? What were the settings on this test?

[trip1ex]

j1h15233, on 06 May 2011 - 10:10 AM, said:

I love the title of this article haha. I hope Apple never releases new computers that are worse.

ONly the date has changed in the title. BEEn the same one for 15 years almost. That's when they had to add the "i".

Good to see though. I like the gpu upgrade in the low plus quad core. Nice.

[trip1ex]

QCassidy352, on 06 May 2011 - 10:11 AM, said:

Looking forward to seeing more graphics tests. The COD 4 framerates are far closer across all models than one would expect. With the exception of the '09 imac that had the 9400m graphics chip, the biggest difference between any two models tested was 10.3 fps. That doesn't at all line up with the very large known differences among the graphics cards tested. What's going on here? What were the settings on this test?

OLd game and run at low resolution in tests (assume same benchmark they've run for quite awhile now as they are comparing the scores to old machines) which means gpu isn't stressed and since all cpus are the same except for clock speed (and game isn't cpu dependent either) you're not going to see big difference in performance.

Step it up to a higher resolution though along with upping eye candy and you'll see the better gpu pull away in frame rate.

But, overall, the low end (as benchmarks show) is faster than ever relative to high-end.

This post has been edited by trip1ex: 06 May 2011 - 10:21 AM

[wallygva]

Is there anywhere a chart that does a crosswalk between all the 6 speedmarks that came before Speedmark 6.5? A way to correlate scores from the past with current nubmers (e.g., "100 on Speedmark 5 would be roughly 55 on Speedmark 6.5").

[QCassidy352]

trip1ex, on 06 May 2011 - 10:18 AM, said:

QCassidy352, on 06 May 2011 - 10:11 AM, said:

Looking forward to seeing more graphics tests. The COD 4 framerates are far closer across all models than one would expect. With the exception of the '09 imac that had the 9400m graphics chip, the biggest difference between any two models tested was 10.3 fps. That doesn't at all line up with the very large known differences among the graphics cards tested. What's going on here? What were the settings on this test?

OLd game and run at low resolution in tests (assume same benchmark they've run for quite awhile now as they are comparing the scores to old machines) which means gpu isn't stressed and since all cpus are the same except for clock speed (and game isn't cpu dependent either) you're not going to see big difference in performance.

Step it up to a higher resolution though along with upping eye candy and you'll see the better gpu pull away in frame rate.

But, overall, the low end (as benchmarks show) is faster than ever relative to high-end.

That's about what I figured. Thanks for the explanation. Seems it's time to update the tests so that they reflect actual differences.

[Jon Seff]

wallygva, on 06 May 2011 - 10:37 AM, said:

Is there anywhere a chart that does a crosswalk between all the 6 speedmarks that came before Speedmark 6.5? A way to correlate scores from the past with current nubmers (e.g., "100 on Speedmark 5 would be roughly 55 on Speedmark 6.5").

Different version of Speedmark use different versions of applications, some different tests, and a different baseline system that sets the '100' score. Because of that, it's hard to be able to make those types of comparisons.

[mancusofamily]

I'm looking forward to seeing the results that include the 3.4GHz i7. I'm not sure whether to get the iMac or the Mac Pro. I mostly do a lot of photo and video editing.

[bastion]

So how does this measure up against my Centris 650?

(Answer: nearly 20,000 times the fp performance.)

[BrianQ]

That headline seems to grab me every time a new machine comes out. A number of years ago, the headline occasionally read otherwise, though you had to wait for the magazine to hit news stands to tell you that the new Macintosh LC was slower than than anything else Apple was currently selling.

Sorry for the run-on sentence there.

[mretondo]

It's time MW has two test, the current general purpose one and a new one the only deals with multi-threaded applications like HandBrake, the new FCP X and the like. I want to know how these Macs stack up against the previous ones when dealing with multi-threaded applications. With Grand Central Dispatch this is becoming more common. So, should I buy a new core i7 or a referb i7 for $500 less?

[whitedog]

I've yet to see any discussion of the advantages of the BTO i7 CPUs. Though two of them show up in these charts, I don't remember seeing any Macworld articles about them. Assuming they exist, links would be nice. It's possible to extrapolate that the i7s are faster in some respects; it's hard to get a clear picture of their strengths and weaknesses (if any) from the charts.

[len5]

THe i7s use Hyperthreading so they should do much better for stuff like Handbrake encoding, ect.